MORE: Anyone who's inclined to complain about the choice of FoxNews should know that the interview was interspersed with commentary from Fred Barnes who was quite critical of Cheney. He repeatedly said there wasn't enough of an explanation for the delay, that it was wrong to have called only a local press outlet, and so forth.

If he plays his cards right, Cheney can turn this whole story on its head. Headlines tomorrow: "Stony VP Shows Soft Side". He takes responsibilty, shows he's emotionally effected by it all and he walks away from this humanized.

hard to walk away humanized from a situation where 1) you participated in some grotesque mockery of hunting involving driving in a vehicle from covey to covey to shoot tame birds like sitting ducks, and 2) after shooting a friend in the face and chest you choose not to accompany that friend to the hospital but instead to have dinner as if nothing happened, and 3) you refuse to talk to the local police until the next day.

So it looks like the exalted in unconvinced. Why do I get the feeling that no matter what Cheney did or does, the exalted won't be pleased.

Sigh.

Haven't seen it yet but I side with those who think Cheney chose Fox because they'd be fair. I've yet to see a Fox interview where they give the Conservative the kind of softballs Liberals get thrown at them on the other networks. Yeah, I know, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I just haven't seen it.

Good for Cheney, I say. He didn't have to do it but, like Ann says, it was a political move. So what?

If he plays his cards right, Cheney can turn this whole story on its head. Headlines tomorrow: "Stony VP Shows Soft Side". He takes responsibilty, shows he's emotionally effected by it all and he walks away from this humanized.

I seriously doubt that is going to be the way it plays out. I don't know what Fox's reach is, but I doubt it's large enough that any initial positive impression (of which, mind, I am dubious) formed by the interview can overwhelm the effect of subsequent pundit bloviation on the moment. And I do not think those pundits are in the mood to construct a narrative of "pleasantly surprising." More likely, it will be the narrative "FLAILING VP FAILS TO JUSTIFY UNFATHOMABLE 18 HOUR DELAY IN TALKING TO NATIONAL PRESS ABOUT SHOOTING HIS FRIEND IN THE HEAD." And that will not work to his advantage at all.

I was starting to think you were making some sense about how Cheney should've tagged along to the hospital, and then I started wondering how disruptive it would be if the second-highest-value target on Earth showed up unexpectedly with his security detail and hung around waiting for word from the doctors.

Maybe it wouldn't be prohibitively disruptive; does anybody know what that kind of thing would involve? Is it just a few bullnecked guys in dark suits with wires in their ears, or is there more to it than that these days?

I haven't kept up with this on a close basis (except for chance to ridicule Cheney). Did the hospital report this to the police? Did any local newspaper check police ledgers?

I would think that any gunshot accidents would be reported as a matter of course (maybe it's common enough in Texas they figure there's no point...) And standard newspaper practice is (used to be) to check out police ledgers on a very regular basis.

1. My Mom once got really sick at my house. I had to call an ambulance. I walked over to the hospital, actually, and ended up sitting around for a few hours. Eventually, I realized that my presence there was completely unnecessary, so I left and I came back the next day.

2. I was once walking home in downtown Chicago. I cut thru an alley, whereupon a Secret Service guy straight from Central Casting stopped me in my tracks and told me I had to go a different way. I had to walk at least two blocks out of my way. Turns out Vice President GORE was dining at an Italian restaurant in the neighborhood.

You Lefties need to calm down. It will be awful is this 78-year-old man dies, but it looks like he is going to be fine. The jokes being made are gloriously funny. But that's it. Cheney had a hunting accident. He wasn't evil before; he isn't evil now; this incident will not lead to any resignation or impeachment, or even a downturn in the polls. All your spite and petty rancor won't change the facts on the ground.

Now, you'll have to pardon me. As a conservative, I've got to to and kill some innocent puppies and hate the world. You loving, cheery Lefties go about your loving, cheery business.

I would think that any gunshot accidents would be reported as a matter of course (maybe it's common enough in Texas they figure there's no point...)

I grew up in South Texas and most of the people I know here are amazed that this is such a hugh story. My Dad is 82 and still has birdshot in his arm from a similar incident that happened 20 years ago. Same thing with my dentist and my brother. I think the only time it is usually reported to the police is when it is life threatening or the ammunition is larger that birdshot.

I think the only time it is usually reported to the police is when it is life threatening or the ammunition is larger that birdshot.

I think there is a disconnect between people who know what birdshot is and people who don't. People who don't probably imagine a shotgun blast like they're used to seeing on television or in movies. I don't think they realize that birdshot is more along the lines of BBs than bullets. Lots of boys shoot each other with BBs, and sometimes they get hurt, but I haven't seen such incidents reported as "gunshots" in local newspapers. Getting seriously wounded by birdshot is probably pretty rare.

I'm sure if this were Clinton or Gore and they threw back a beer, picked up a gun and accidentally shot someone, everyone on the Right would be looking for a sympathetic angle, right? Anyone who asked tough questions is just filled with illogical, soul-killing hatred for all things Bush/Cheney?

And of course Cheney chose Fox because it was more likely Fox would treat him with kid gloves and give the VP an excellent opportunity to clean this mess up. This is political Kabuki theatre at its best!

And to the people who think other outlets wouldn't be "fair"- what exactly is not being "fair" in this situation? Asking tough questions? Not turning this into a GOP infomercial as part of damage control?

I give credit where credit is due- these guys are brilliant politicians- I particularly like the "it's all my fault" mantra from Cheney today while Mary Matalin, Mrs. Armstrong and others are running around telling everyone how it wasn't cheney's fault but the poor guys who got shot. That's great politics. It really is.

And the whole bit about not talking to authorities for so long- I am sure it would be very "unfair" to even entertain the idea that perhaps Cheney and his crew didn't want said authorities to realize he had been drinking.

Nah, that would be terribly unfair to Dick Cheney. After all, I am sure if it were clinton, everyone would think such horrible insinuations would be seen as terribly unfair.

After all, the GOP would never try to turn a personal issue that has little to do with a leaders's public role, into a political witch hunt. No, never.

I don't hunt but a neighbor did and once he was walking thru the woods behind two friends. Another hunter mistook them for game and shot. The first two were killed instantly; the single bullet went thru the first guy and into the second. My neighbor, the third guy, was shook up but uninjured.

My point is accidents happen all the time around guns and hunters. And that is all this was.

1. "[I]f this were Clinton or Gore...everyone on the Right would be looking for a sympathetic angle, right?" Would people on the left not look for such an angle? Certainly, they would? If they would, why is it wrong for people on the right to do so?

2. Who is arguing that it is "unfair" to criticize Cheney?

3. "I particularly like the 'it's all my fault' mantra from Cheney..." Is it wrong for Cheney to accept blame? Do you think it was someone else's fault? By your logic, Republicans are to be blamed no matter what they do.

4. Best of all. "[T]he GOP would never try to turn a personal issue that has little to do with a leaders's public role, into a political witch hunt." Do you think it's right and good, and good for the public discourse, to do such a thing? You seem not to. If you think "a political witch hunt" "that has little to do with a leaders's public role" is a bad thing, why are you casting around in an obvious attempt to create "a political witch hunt" "that has little to do with a leaders's public role"?

Your entire "argument" amounts to "Republicans are bad and we think it was dreadfully wrong that they tried to tar Clinton politically over personal issues. Now, we will try to tar Republicans over personal issues."

Isn't this grossly unethical and hypocrtical? How can you do the very things you hate others for doing to you.

One other thing: your post is no doubt wholly untinged of animosity. I can see that you are yet another lefty full of love and cheer. This is why voters continue to flock to your side, I guess.

Let's put it this way - if Faux News is blasting (pardon) Cheney, what would the others have done? It's still the softest touch he was going to find, except maybe the RNC magazine.

And I agree, had Cheney's incident been quietly officially announced Saturday, with an appropriate apology, it probably would still have been fodder for Leno & co. but not the Major Issue it's become. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

AJ- I think it's not so much the accident, but how it was handled. The fact is that the VP lives in a fishbowl and when something like this happens, any lack of transparency looks like some sort of cover-up and when facts dribble out and are sometimes inconsistent or very selective, it just looks bad.

I dont think they handled it very well, personally, and in the end they could have saved themselves some grief had they handled it differently, but hindsight is 20/20.

But as I said above, I find it VERY hard to believe that so many of the obvious administration fans here would be so forgiving of this "accident" had it been Clinton, Gore or a Kerry and had they handled it the same way.

I can't help but think you all would be singing a different tune if this weren't Cheney- from the lack of disclosure, to the fact that the authorities were prevented by the Secret Service from talking to him for so long, to the way everyone was coming out and blaming the victim immediately after the they found out about the incident.

And particularly the bit about the "one beer"- in light of the fact that there was a quote from Mrs. Armstrong about this yesterday on MSNBC.com but interestingly, it was removed from the website (that darn liberal media!) but remained in google's cache. This made its way quickly around the blogosphere- did the WH hope to keep this under wraps?

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it all comes down to politics. And sometimes, that gets old.

Stacy -- Why do you continue to push the "beer" angle? You are clearly suggesting that Cheney was drunk when the incident happened. You don't know this to be true.

Are you not making things up, then, in an attempt to harm politically politicans you disagree with? How is your line of argument any different than "Clinton killed Vince Foster" or "Clinton ran a cocaine ring out of Arkansas"?

For someone so vitiolically opposed to tarring political opponents with things that have nothing to do with their policies, you sure do it a lot. Are you also a thief against stealing? A bigamist who supports polygamy?

Yes, of course, if it had been Clinton it would be obvious that this just illustrates his major character flaws. Don't forget, though, that if it were Clinton, those on offense here would be spinning like tops how this had nothing to do with policy or performance of public duties & it's a private matter, really ... almost as private as sex, y'know.

It’s another non-news story. What are we to take away – that Dick is contrite? …presumably because he should have been more careful? Who is running the asylum anyway? To think that I once took solace the belief that Cheney was actually running the country and ‘W’ only a kind of mealy-mouthed, blue collar spokesman. The truth is that none of these people are the sharpest tools in the shed.

And particularly the bit about the "one beer"- in light of the fact that there was a quote from Mrs. Armstrong about this yesterday on MSNBC.com but interestingly, it was removed from the website (that darn liberal media!)

It's always, in the interests of undermining the major media powers, worthwhile to question why they make alterations to their stories without openly explaining why (a little alteration log would do the trick), so I hope you or someone else concerned about this hector MSNBC into explaining what was going on . . .

But why would you think the Bush administration could pressure MSNBC into altering its news articles to paint Cheney in a more favourable light? I think it's much more likely that, as with many things they just heard a rumour, or had "beer" reported to them second-hand (or indirectly, e.g. someone knowledgeable about these types of situations comments that they're common when people have taken a drink or two, and the writer mixes things up), and put it in, only to take it out later when they checked the sourcing.

There may well have been a beer or two involved -- I don't know -- but I don't think that's been firmly established yet.

I recall an interview by Matt Lauer with then vice president nominee Dick Cheney in which Lauer asked a question, then cut off Cheney mid-answer with another unrelated question. He did this repeatedly never allowing Cheney to adequately address any question. Lauer's demeanor radiated hostility and distain.

Well, Seven Machos--thats one definition of politics, but I think the notion of politics as the process that authoritatively allocates values is much better, inasmuch as politics deals with values--and it might be well to remember some basic philosophy 101 here--questions of fact can be right or wrong; values are statements of "ought"--and as such can never be right or wrong in a rigorous sense--but, hey--its amazing what we forget as we get older.

Somehow, I dont think there are a lot of people on this thread that ever gone afield, carrying a shotgun, hunting for game--its a suspicion, mind you, but if you have then you might have a bit more empathy for the situation the VEEP (may peace be upon him) finds himself in.

And actually, I really dont think the Veep gives much of a damn what any of us think--interestingly enough he gave the interview on fox--like sticking it to the other networks--

Do any posters on this board thinks the VP gives a damn what any of us think? You think he is going to be impeached? The President CAN'T fire him--he is a separately elected official (that comes as a shock to many on the left). He is going to serve out his term, collect his pension, become an elder statesman, and continue to go hunting--With any luck Pinch Sulzberger will go hunting with him, and the Veep (MPBOH) take care of a major cesspool.Get a grip folks

r russell: I guess you'll have to add Cheney to the stupid faction in the demonology of the current administration. Who will take the place of evil mastermind in your fantasy world? There's always Rumsfeld, I guess.

Also, I wonder: you seem to take yourself to be pretty smart. Do you hold public office? Why not? Bush is dumber than a box of hair, but he got elected on his good looks and charm. That's the argument, isn't it? What about Cheney? You are smarter than he is, and you MUST have more charisma.

Why heckle Cheney from the sidelines? An intelligent charmer like yourself should hold high office.

Quxxo, I couldn't find any report of any press conference, but I did find this:

"On July 18, 1969, after a party on Chappaquiddick Island near the island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Kennedy, allegedly intoxicated, drove away with Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge that was angled obliquely to the road, and drove over its side, which had no guardrail. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and landed upside down under the water. Kopechne died, but as no autopsy was performed, precise cause of death is unknown. Kennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "boiler room girls" had occurred.

Joseph Gargan (Kennedy's cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Though there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel on the mainland. As the ferry had shut down for the night, Kennedy swam the short distance back to Edgartown.

Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer, before he contacted the police.

The next morning (July 19, 1969) the police recovered Kennedy's car. Kopechne's body was discovered by diver John Farrar, who observed that a large amount of air was released from the car when it was righted in the water, and that the trunk, when opened, was remarkably dry. These observations and others have led some to believe that Kopechne had not drowned, but suffocated in an air pocket within the car.

The incident quickly blossomed into a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for allegedly driving drunk, for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first.

Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended."

What is absolutely amazing is that as his reward, Teddy Kennedy is a senator for LIFE. And a woman whose entire life lay ahead of her, was snuffed out. But hey; S**t happens.Why didn't Kennedy call the police right then and there?

Oh well. Lucky for the-drunken- bloated-mega-liberal-hypocrite-Senator-for-life- that back then, drunk driving and vehicular man-slaughter were no big deal.

I, too, am not sure what conflating Cheney and Chappaquiddick does. Because Kennedy killed someone, Cheney doesn't have to worry? Or are they somehow equal, and therefore trivial? Or are the kneejerk reactions to Chenery identical to the kneejerk reactions to Kennedy?

Seven Machos: "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs."

"1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : THE ART OR SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH WINNING AND HOLDING CONTROL OVER A GOVERNMENT..."

There are a lot of Clinton/Cheney comparisons going on here. But let's keep it straight: Harry M. Whittington was almost blown away by Dick Cheney, but Bill Clinton was totally blown - er - away by Monica Lewinsky.

And, you know why Hillary is so angry? Shortly after Bill's affair with Monica ended, Hillary, as a part of her strategy to win Bill back, had jumped him in their bed and exercised all of her feminine sexual capabilities upon him for well over six minutes or so. Anyway, upon completion she looked up at him and said, "Well what do thing of that! Bet it beats anything you got from that floozy in the sticky dress!". To which Bill smiled and replied, "Close. But no cigar."

Ann, you want politics and history and melodrama Texas style with Texas Rangers and Oil and politicians all mixed in? You want a story of a hypocritical, ruthless and decadent ruling class that made its own rules and led a society to the edge of catastrophe?

Well, Sidney Blumenthal would know - though his main acvhievement was shooting himself in the foot with a brick-like memoir that gave new meaning to the word tendentious. (Rating - M for Masochistic Political Junkies only).

I'm still trying to figure out whether Cheney uloaded an Uzi into the face of a random old man in a fit of drunken imperial hubris, or whether it was all a cunning plot to distract the MSM from the fact that the world is sliding into a giant vat of boiling bat poo.

"Exactly *what* is Cheney being criticized for? Exactly what was supressed?"

That's what I've been wondering. I haven't been following the story closely, byt I get the impression that the victim was treated and the police and local press were notified pretty much immediately. Does the "coverup" really just consist of the Washington press core not being personally notified quickly enough to satisfy their egos?

So it's well known that a lot of hunters dring while hunting. The only witness who was allowed to talk with the press first said there was no drinking, then said there was beer at lunch but she doesn't know who drank, then said Cheney had a beer, then said Cheney had a beer and cocktail at dinner. No responsible person is saying they know for sure that Cheney was drunk. We'll obviously never know, because Cheney saw to it that no one talked to him about it for 18 hours. But anyone even mentioning the word "beer" is vilified as if the very idea is being pulled out of thin air.

Everyone wants to give Cheney big kudos because he accepted responsibility, but you may notice he still hasn't said anything about the most shameful part of this, which is that his spokespersons blamed the victim. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that while praising what a stand-up guy Cheney is.

And I didn't think Barnes was particularly tough on Cheney. All he said was that Cheney should have announced it sooner. Big deal. Even Ari Fleischer is saying that, and Scott McClellan is hinting at it as much as he's allowed to. But Barnes also managed to repeat the meme that the press is out of control, and that average Americans see the press as being at fault. Since I have yet to see a poll on the matter, I'd like to know what Barnes based that on, other than Republican talking points.

The fact is that Cheney decided the press would get the story wrong, so he annointed a spokesperson to tell the press, and she got the story as wrong as you can get it. I suppose that's the liberal media's fault?

I can't believe that everyone on this board is so dumb as to not know bullshit when they hear it. McClellan tries to put off any questions by saying Cheney's first concern was that his friend get treatment, as if anyone questioning him is opposed to having compassion for a wounded friend. But really, what does that mean? Did it take 18 hours for him to be sure his friend was treated? Was he "making sure" the whole time? That's just a glib way of trying to escape any specific questions, and the press was right to call him on it.

If the admnistration doesn't want a lot of theories and unfounded accusations making the rounds, perhaps they could try telling the truth the first time, and answering reasonable questions when they're asked. This is a continuation of the administration's basic approach to the press, which is "how dare you question us?" You can ridicule the press all you want, but would you rather have no one watching the people in power?